are treated, separate and apart, from other written fee agreements. However, insofar as the language I used in my reasons in
Jane Conte can be seen as applying to all written fee agreements, then I acknowledge that they are in error. With the benefit of the more comprehensive material filed in this case, and the
reasons in Cozzi, I have reached a different view regarding the
proper approach to the provisions of the Solicitors Act.
 I conclude, therefore, that a simple or usual written fee
agreement does not fall within the scope of s. 16(1); it is not covered by the requirement of review under s. 17; and it is not subject to the prohibition against an action being commenced to
enforce it under s. 23. A lawyer, who has a simple or usual fee
agreement, is entitled to have resort to the assessment process
if s/he wants to, but the lawyer is also entitled to commence an
action to recover his/her fees as contemplated by s. 2. As I have
said, the client retains the right to require an assessment as
provided for in s. 3.
 I should add that this conclusion is not intended, and
should not be taken, as any approval of, or excuse for, the failure
of the Ministry of the Attorney General to properly resource the
assessment process. The problems that arise from that failure, both
for the bar and for the public, remain. It should also be apparent
to the Ministry of the Attorney General that the time has long
since passed when it ought to engage in a thorough review, and
modernization, of the Solicitors Act, and all of its provisions.
 In the end result, the appeal is dismissed.
 No costs were sought and none are ordered. I would be
remiss if I did not express the court’s appreciation to counsel for
the appellant, who provided us with very helpful material on
these complicated issues, including authorities that did not, necessarily, support their position.
The Corporation of the Town of Huntsville v.
Lloyd’s Underwriters et al.
[Indexed as: Huntsville (Town) v. Lloyd’s Underwriters]
2017 ONSC 1208
Superior Court of Justice, Wood J. February 22, 2017
Insurance — Insurer’s duty to defend — Homeowners suing town
after discovering that basement flooding resulted from non-compliance
with Building Code and that building inspection department had